I think it's a really fair question. It's important to understand the implications of spending. I think we have to understand all of the various impacts it will have, including on government budgets and the capacity to sustain them over time.
I would use the analogy of investment as being really fair on the social side, which I don't think is actually discussed enough. We're very quick to replace a Champlain Bridge, for instance, and other physical infrastructure. Ultimately we see those as investments, because we yield benefits over time to the population. On the social side, I'd say that we haven't been very good at actually doing the health economics necessary to understand the full range of implications in all areas.
In some areas we have. You mentioned child care. In terms of child care, we know from the Quebec model that a lot of money is being spent on that every year, over $2 billion. According to one study, however—although I know there's some controversy over it—we know that in terms of the number of women in particular, single moms especially, who because of access to affordable child care will get back into the workforce, with the lowering of social assistance payments to them, as Pierre Fortin calculated, it's about kif-kif. The spending and the investment over time achieved an increase in revenue and a reduction in cost that about offset each other. That's not counting the benefits to the children going to quality day care, hopefully, in most cases, and all of the positive benefits that come out of that.
That's just one example, but I would just like to say that there are others. We need to do more of that kind of—